HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20101102 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010
Comments 2
Minutes 2
Conflicts of Interest 2
500 W Hopkins Ave PUD Amendment (Boomerang) 2
1
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010
Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting Tuesday, November 02, 2010 to order at
4:30pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners present were Mike
Wampler, Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Cliff Weiss
and Jim DeFrancia were excused. Staff in attendance were John Worcester, City
Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie
Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
Minutes
The minutes of October 19` were postponed to the next meeting.
Conflicts of Interest
Mike Wampler stated he knew the applicant and his representative; we have not
discussed this and it will not affect his judgment one way or another.
Bert Myrin said that he didn't know if this was a conflict of interest but he and
Jasmine reviewed this 2001.
LJ Erspamer worked with Jody Edwards and Paul Taddune years ago but this will
not affect his review of the project.
PUBLIC HEARING:
500 W Hopkins Ave (Boomerang Lodge) — PUD Amendment
Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for 500 W Hopkins, Boomerang
Lodge — PUD Amendment. Jennifer Phelan spoke about the public hearing
process; she would present the application and P &Z members could ask questions
of staff and the applicant presentation followed by questions from the
commissioners; public comments and back to the commission.
Phelan said that the project was being proposed to contain 54 Affordable Housing
Units and receive affordable housing credits as a result of the proposal. There are
a number of land use approval that are required to entitle this project as proposed.
Some are decided by the Planning & Zoning Commission while others receive
final approval by City Council. Phelan will discuss fist the history of the property
and basically how did we get to this hearing; 2 an overview of the request; 3 how
the P &Z can evaluate the request; 4 key issues identified by staff associated with
the proposal before the commission and concluding with a staff recommendation.
Phelan said that public notice was provided in mailing, posting and publication in
the newspaper. Phelan said that in 2006 City Council approved the redevelopment
and expansion of the Boomerang Lodge. It approved 47 lodge units, 5 free market
units and 2 affordable housing units on site. There were a total of 43 parking
spaces associated with the approval; 31 underground, 12 surface parking spaces
2
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010
partially in the right of way along Fourth Street. The floor area ratio was 1.66 to 1
and equates to 44,820 square feet of floor area for the lodge development and it
was approved as a 4 story building with varying heights in the high 30s.
Phelan said the current proposal to use the exact same shell that was approved for
the lodge development with regard to height, mass and size and redevelop the
interior with 54 affordable housing units; a mix of studio, one and two bedroom
units. Currently the applicant is proposing 33 underground parking spaces and 21
surface parking spaces that use public right of way to some extent. The applicant
requested an amendment to the PUD; essentially there were 2 ways to look at this
project; the mass and scale have been thoroughly vetted by past commissions and
the city council and is appropriate for the neighborhood as approved. Another way
to consider this application was to consider it a new application and both are valid
and evaluate the mass and scale and use of the proposed application on its merits.
Phelan said there was a number of reviews going to city council which were the
rezoning of this property; currently it is zoned R -6 with a Lodge Preservation
Overlay and a PUD for the site specific approval of the 2006 plan. The applicant is
asking to rezone the property to residential multi - family and maintain the PUD
Overlay on it and change the use to Multi- Family Residential. A PUD
Amendment is also needed to change the entitlements to a completely residential
development proposed. Subdivision is needed because of the development of
multiple dwelling units on the site.
Phelan said that P &Z has final review authority over growth management review
for the affordable housing; growth management review with regard to a change of
use because this is changing from a lodge use to a residential use and that's a
change of use in the land use code and special review, which gets memorialized in
the PUD for the off street parking requirements that are going to be established in
this Planned Unit Development. Currently the parking requirement is one space
per dwelling unit; the applicant was looking for a variation on that. The final
review under P &Z is issuance of certificates of affordable housing; this was a new
program passed by Council that says if a private developer wants to convert a
project to all affordable housing, it can be done.
Phelan said the Aspen Area Community Plan excused a number of review criteria
to find compliance both in rezoning and PUD review criteria. The 2000 Aspen
Area Community Plan is evaluated with this application; it's not the draft that is
out there because it has not been adopted by any board. The 2000 AACP's goal is
located in a chapter on more affordable housing within the urban growth boundary
3
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010
and city limits, that the private sector should contribute to affordable housing and
should be of high quality.
Phelan said this application is asking that the variances that were granted to the
Boomerang as a lodge be retained; keep the shell of the building and change the
interior of it. Staff feels the dimensional variations granted to Boomerang as a
Lodge should be weighed in light of the project being proposed as multi- residential
and the multi -use fits within the character of the neighborhood but the height and
floor area exceed those in the multi - family residential zone district. Staff is
recommending the existing floor area associated with the lodge be reduced to the
maximum permitted at 1.5 to 1 and would be 45,000 square feet and would take off
approximately 10% of the size of the structure, essentially the 4 floor of the
building. Staff does support the rezoning and change in use. Engineering has
asked for the traffic impact analysis. Staff would like to see floor plans for the
livability of the units and to have the applicant work with the transportation
department to strengthen the transportation demand management plan that they
have provided. Staff recommends the application be remanded back to the
applicant to make some adjustments and then come back to the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
Mike Wampler asked if they go to the RMF Zoning you want them to adhere to the
restrictions such as the 32 foot height and the 40,500 square foot. Phelan
responded the floor area yes, the height taking off 10% would be the most natural
place to take off part of the 4 floor.
Bert Myrin asked if this would have been built as was approved and then the
applicant was coming in to what's requested here, you would have an existing
shell. Phelan said that this is hypothetical and we also have a site that has been
partially demolished and the applicant is asking for the entitlements associated
with a lodge to be converted to this affordable housing. John Worcester said you
would be looking at the same approvals except you would have less flexibility
because you would have a structure that was already there.
LJ Erspamer asked what Jennifer meant by design and operational characteristics.
Phelan replied as a PUD Amendment there were a number of review standards and
some have to do with the design of the building and some of them have to do with
height, mass and scale. Erspamer asked about the numbers for the traffic counts at
peak season and peak time of day.
4
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010
Stan Gibbs asked what the downsizing or rezoning that occurred in the 1970s was.
Phelan replied RMF.
Steve Stunda, applicant, said that Michael Hoffman, attorney, was distributing the
revised parking plan and former parking plan (Exhibit N 4 pages). Steve Stunda
said that he was the managing partner and has lived in Aspen since 1969; he said
that he was sensitive to Aspen. Stunda said his partnership bought the lodge from
Charlie and Fonda Paterson in June of 05 and went under contract in January and
met with city officials that this was a viable prospect to develop. The process took
one year involving numerous meetings with neighbors as well with city staff and
worked within the rules and regulations that applied, never sought any kinds of
changes or variances to it and after a year with lots of negotiation the building was
finally approved in the manner in which it is currently existing. Stunda said they
paid a million dollars in design fees to get it to that extent; the entitlements last
through October of 12, the height, size and bulk were agreed upon and that's why
he thought this use change would be rather Performa. Stunda said he didn't want
to upset anyone and sent out letters to all the neighbors; knocked on doors to say
the building will be as it was negotiated to be except for changes to the inside,
which you are not going to see anyway. Stunda said the reason he is before P &Z
now is because Community Development thought it was too big for an
administrative decision. Stunda voluntary dedicated the East Wing to the historic
preservation group so that people could always see a piece of old Aspen and he
feels very strongly about that and in the process of developing the construction
permit drawings the western portion of the lodge was demolished in April 2007.
Since 2007 so many lenders left the industry and there are 12 lenders left and not
one of them is interested in financing this project; the condo lodge is most
impacted by the lenders because they don't know how to treat that category.
Stunda said he would certainly revisit reducing the floor area by 10 %; it will be
reflected in building size and the number of units and required parking. Stunda
said that with respect to parking with the adjusted building size they will meet the
1 space per unit standards and conform to what staff says with the multi - family.
Stunda spoke to Steve Goldenberg and some of the Christiana people and they
have their feelings and respectfully request that the Planning & Zoning move this
onto City Council with the conditions as recommended by staff.
Michael Hoffman stated he was the attorney representing the applicant, Aspen
FSP -AVR LLC. Hoffman asked that the existing approvals be maintained with an
expressed condition with the final approval by City Council; this request has no
impact on your recommendations. John Worcester said that legally there was
5
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010
nothing wrong with conditioning approvals. Worcester said the applicant just
wants to make sure that the original approvals don't go away.
Hoffman said Exhibit A is the current proposed parking plan and shows 33 parking
spaces with space #8 as handicapped. Exhibit B was the 2006 approved parking
plan with 31 spaces. The reasons the new plan has 33 spaces because some of the
mechanical for the building has been dissimilated to the units instead of a
centralized system; so there are 45 spaces dedicated to the project. There were 4
more proposed dedicated pull in spaces on Hopkins bringing the number of
parking spaces up to 49.
Hoffman cited the letter from Jody Edwards that were complaints raised by a
number of other parties who submitted letters. Hoffman said that there was
discretion as to how many parking spaces were required. Stunda said that they do
want to provide 1 space per unit dedicated. Hoffman said they have submitted a
transportation demand management plan for reducing the demand for parking;
there was a covenant in the condominium declaration for this project that would
limit the number of cars to 1 per unit. Hoffman said APCHA made that a
condition of their endorsement of the project. Hoffman said they would make a
$20,000.00 contribution to the cars to go program to be used as they deem
appropriate. Hoffman said they intend to promote public transportation, this
property is only 1/2 a block away from Main Street; they have a plan for bicycles
with racks in the basement and intend to promote carpooling.
Hoffman believed the Boomerang site represents a unique opportunity to the
community for affordable housing; they are surprised and dismayed by the reaction
of the neighbors to affordable housing use on this site. The building itself was
approved by the city in 2006 and urged P &Z to vote to recommend this application
because of the good it does for the community as a whole.
LJ Erspamer asked if the mechanical was sub - grade. Stunda replied that it was.
Erspamer asked if it was being moved to the rooftop now. Stunda responded the
residential requirement was for the mechanical to be unit specific and that freed up
the space in the lower level.
Jasmine Tygre said the number of units was recommended by APCHA but the
units are below the minimum size that's usually recommended because of the
additional storage. Tygre asked if the applicant would be open to considering
reducing the number of units and increasing the size of the units as part of an
approval process. Stunda said that was a difficult question for him to respond to
6
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010
just yes or no because the key driving component of this project as a private
developer providing the housing is in the FTE equivalents and they are mandated
by unit type.
Bert Myrin asked how P &Z was supposed to make a decision tonight without
knowing the unavailable numbers on units, traffic study and so on. Hoffman
replied they ask P &Z to identify those things that you need and condition your
recommendation of approval to Council of receipt of those. Stunda said they could
give rough out lines. Myrin said that the 2000 AACP says that visitors demanding
a variety of choices for accommodations including small lodges; how does
converting this from a small lodge to something else fit with that direction. Stunda
replied it doesn't, we tried for 3 years to get this thing going and did not succeed.
Public Comments:
1. Dick Carter stated that he owned unit A204 at Christina and they knew
someday something would happen at the Boomerang. The Boomerang
redevelopment was approved to go up 4 stories to provide more bed space
for this town; the purpose was not to provide 4 stories of affordable housing.
The single most important reason for objecting to this is the ordinance
passed by the City to allow a major zoning variance in this residential
community was to get more bed spaces, to get more tourists and spend more
to increase the tax base for the city, affordable housing doesn't do that. Yes
it does satisfy an important need. Carter thought that this project would
have an adverse value of surrounding properties.
2. Jody Edwards said he represented Steve and Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan
Vernor and John State. Edwards said the applicant would have you believe
that the 2010 AACP was not relevant and only the 2000 AACP was relevant.
Edwards said a PUD was a negotiated with the city and there is no
entitlement to any PUD and it was totally discretionary with the city whether
or not it grants approval therefore P &Z is charged with determining whether
or not the offered community benefits and resulting community impacts
justify the variances being requested. Edwards said the 2010 AACP reflects
the community's current thinking; 2000 AACP was at a different economy.
There is no doubt affordable housing is a community benefit but you need to
consider at what cost. The 2010 AACP states clearly on page2 that our
resort economy is the only sustainable economy that we have and needs to
be protected; the community cannot afford to lose its lodging inventory
especially moderately priced lodging inventory. Edwards said the proposal
in front of you is directly contrary to an unambiguous goal policy and action
item in the 2010 AACP. Edwards referred to page 44 of the packet with
7
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010
regard to parking with the 2 criteria to consider if an on street off street
parking solution is practically difficult or results in an undesirable
development scenario; this is a perfectly flat lot and the developer can put
the parking on the lot instead of on street by making the building smaller.
Edwards asked P &Z to deny the application.
3. John Olson stated that he was a contractor in town. Olson said he looked at
the project and it could be done with the change of the inside of this
building. Olson said from a personal perspective this project was 10 times
in the best interest of this city and way better than Burlingame in terms of
per unit no matter how you look at it.
4. Rustin Gudin stated he was the chairman of APCHA and Mr. Stunda came
before APCHA and took the recommendations to heart. Gudin said that
reducing the size 10% was great that Steve was willing to do that but he was
not; it has already gone through the process. Gudin said the people living
there would be paying property taxes, shopping in town and adding to the
economy, maybe not the same way the tourists would be but certainly
adding to the economy. Gudin said there would probably be some
headaches with the parking and APCHA suggested one car per unit. Gudin
said the people actually living there as employees are going to care a lot
more with what is actually going on as far as the traffic because it is their
neighborhood as well.
5. Doug Allen said that there is a serious parking problem in the West end now
and is supposed to be primarily low density residential; the parking problem
is the biggest problem. Allen said that with the improvements to Main
Street the parking was taken away. There are already 2 nice employee
housing units one on 7 and Main and one behind this project. Allen said it
needs to be what it was approved as or not built.
6. Ron Erickson stated that he serves on the APCHA Board and they approved
this unanimously and the key is the unit size, the categories do reflect the
highest need in the city; they are small units, studios, one bedroom and two
bedrooms and nothing over category 4. Erickson said that he was a neighbor
and lives behind them and is all in favor of this project and would build 60
units if he could and doesn't think that there is a parking problem. Erickson
said for a housing project this is a terrific gift to the community.
7. Charles Cunniffe said it was a rare opportunity for this kind of housing being
built in the core of town and this shouldn't be missed. Cunniffe said that a
10% reduction was not valid on this either and you have the art museum that
was approved without protest and this project serves the community far
more than that does and he has to protest. Cunniffee said this project should
be embraced because it is what the community desperately needs.
8
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010
8. Tom McCabe said he was director of the housing authority and made a
comment about the Aspen Area Community Plan like the Bible it says many
things and contradicts those things many pages later. McCabe said the
rational for the urban growth boundary concept is the city agrees to accept
greater density within the boundary in exchange for the preservation of
important open spaces in outlying areas and key parcels in the city. McCabe
said this project presents a good opportunity when essentially nothing is
happening and we have a good applicant that has talked to them about what
makes a project better and work more for the tenants.
9. Cheryl Goldenberg stated that she lived next door and was not against
affordable housing if it fit in gently it would be fine and the Christiana was
one of the densest buildings in the neighborhood but wasn't used very much
so it doesn't create a lot of traffic. A nice amount of employee housing
would be 34 units and then you could put parking on the property too and
they could have 34 spaces in the garage and the units could be bigger and
nicer for people to live in. Goldenberg was worried because after 3 years
she is still looking at the hole where the Boomerang was torn down and not
replaced with anything and there were buildings not completed all over
town.
10.John Batey said he was the attorney for the Scott family and speaking
personally he thought that this was just bad planning. Batey said the parking
was a symptom of the increased density of this building; it is misleading that
the outside shell is not changing because you are going from a property that
is being used maybe 50% or 60% a year of maybe half of those would
maybe be driving cars so it is a much more dense use of the neighborhood.
Batey said the Jewish Center was around the corner and had no parking
included in their development. Batey said that this project should not be
approved or approved with much lower density.
11.Paul Taddune said that he was an attorney and was here on behalf of himself
as an owner of 323 W Main St and on behalf of the Christiana Lodge that
would be impacted by this project. Taddune said the Planning & Zoning
Commission should rely on neutral principals not look at whether or not
some developer tore down a building that is now in financial distress. The
2010 Community Plan recognizes that lodges should be preserved so here
we have 54 units that are going to go out the window that are desperately
needed in the community.
12. Steve Goldenberg said when the Boomerang wanted to expand when Charlie
owned it we were against it and there was no underground parking in that
plan. Goldenberg said after many meetings Charlie said that he was going to
build the underground parking and we became supporters. Goldenberg said
9
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010
that there were at least half the cars with a lodge. Goldenberg said he was
interested in making sure that the place was livable. Goldenberg said it
wasn't so much the FAR but the number of people; the standard should be 1
to 1 FAR. Goldenberg said this was a low density neighborhood.
13.Angela Young said she supports what Steve has said in opposition, this
change of use request deserves a critical analysis and examination before
you make the final consideration.
14.Rick Head said he was chairman of the board of adjustment and said he was
fortunate enough to live in affordable housing for the last 16 years and if this
doesn't get approved there's roughly 50 people that won't have the
opportunity to have housing. Head hoped that P &Z would look favorably on
this application.
15.Scott Stewart said he lived in the Scott Building and there were 5 units.
Stewart agreed with reducing the density. Stewart said that he 1previpously
ived in a very small unit in the Glory Hole and it was very uncomfortable.
Stewart said that in the Scott Condo they have over 1400 square feet and it is
very comfortable. Stewart said their area was definitely a family orientated
area and they hope to maintain that.
Stan Gibbs closed the public comment section of the public hearing.
Erspamer asked if there was a difference in height for a lodge as opposed to multi-
family. Phelan said for the RMF Zone the height is 32 feet. Phelan said what was
approved was 37 feet 4 inches as a lodge.
Michael Hoffman said it was pretty clear that the neighbors were upset about the
proposed density and staff has said that a 10% reduction will address those
concerns. Hoffman asked that P &Z give serious consideration to the staff
recommendation.
Jasmine Tygre said that one of the concerns for P &Z generally was the importance
of preservation of lodge units, particularly smaller less expensive lodge units.
Tygre said there were some flaws in the lodge program that we have had for a long
time and one of the problems with lodges in residential neighborhoods was that
they were either non - conforming in terms of density, in terms of size and in terms
of usage and there always have been problems trying to preserve them. Tygre said
one of the thing that was the incentive was allowing larger dimensions and that
hasn't worked and the neighbors said that a lodge would be lower density and that
was the opposite of what we want. Tygre said they wanted hotbeds and a lot of
traffic and a lot of density in our lodges and yet everybody knows that's not
10
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010
happening in areas that are not really lodge areas. Tygre said this is a larger
concern for P &Z which doesn't affect this project except for the fact that she never
liked the dimensions of the lodge to begin with; she didn't think it was compatible
with the neighborhood and she was please that the applicant was willing to do a
10% reduction in FAR. Tygre said that if you want to rezone this property to RMF
use then use the RMF dimensions that means height as well as FAR; she thought
that would be a good argument for saying that would be an appropriate use. Tygre
said the dimensions for RMF should apply to this project and I think that the
applicant has indicated his willingness to do this; that will solve some of the
density problems and she would like to make a suggestion because she understands
APCHA's willingness to accept smaller units for category 3 and 4 units they
should be at least the minimum size. Tygre said people don't live in storage units;
you need to have units that people will be able to live in comfortably. Tygre stated
by reducing the density you will reduce the need for parking and reduce the
concern of the neighborhood if we have a really nice affordable housing project.
Tygre said they did not have to see detailed pictures but would like to see numbers
if you created x number of units of the minimum size would that be workable and
what would the overall number of units and parking spaces.
Erspamer thanked everybody for being so civil; he was reluctant to vote on this
tonight because he didn't want to vote on something that's going to be determined
later. Erspamer voiced concern over the shuttle on demand because it would mean
more trips; say if someone wants to go to the Aspen Club it would be 2 trips there
and 2 trips back instead of 1. Erspamer said that the applicant has done a great job
with this application especially compromising. Erspamer said that if this would
come back within the dimensions that are required for that zone. Erspamer said he
doesn't agree with looking at the 2010 AACP; our criteria concerns the 2000
AACP which says the housing policy should emphasize the development of
neighborhoods and community not just units. Erspamer disagreed that if you take
away parking people won't drive cars; however it just doesn't work in reality; in
his neighborhood they built a development and reduced the parking so everybody
parks in front of their neighbors houses now and they never had a parking problem
before. Erspamer said he was not in favor of dedicated public parking spaces to
private projects even with employee housing. Erspamer suggested continuing this
to the next meeting. Phelan said a week to have the applicant come back and for
staff to write a memo on any changes would be difficult and the meeting could be
December 14` Erspamer said that he agreed with what Jasmine said.
Mike Wampler said that he lives in employee housing his entire time and he was a
proponent of employee housing and he could support this proposal and keep an
open mind to go 10% back.
11
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010
Bert Myrin said that we were not building new small lodges; he noted in the 2000
AACP it stated not converting lodges into non -lodge use. Myrin agreed with
Jasmine on using the residential standards for height and FAR. Myrin said the
outside should look like the neighborhood. Myrin wanted clarity on the shuttle and
in perpetuity for the shuttle. Myrin said that he would like to see the livability of
the units. Myrin said that he was not taking into account was the financing
because it wasn't relevant nor was the property value of a neighbor; what is
relevant was the livability of the units and the livability of the neighborhood.
Myrin said tonight he could not support this.
Stan Gibbs said rather than repeat all the things the commissioners said and
Jasmine in particular stated how he sees this project. Gibbs said he had a hard time
keeping the shell as it was defined for a lodge and basically assuming that if you
fill it in with a different use it that it doesn't have different impacts on the
neighborhood. Gibbs said he understood the constraints that Steve was under but
this project needs a better refinement along the lines of a 10% cut back or as a
housing development as opposed to a lodge it feels too large; he was not on P &Z
when the project originally came up; at the time he would have probably voted
against it because it seems very large even with all of the incentives of a lodge.
Gibbs said that he was a firm proponent of affordable housing and was excited
about the affordable housing credit program and there have been a couple other
projects have come through and it's a huge benefit to the community. Gibbs said
in its current configuration; he felt it was their responsibility as a board to know
what they were voting on and would like to see it continued for a couple of weeks
and get a better definition of the proposal. Gibbs said that they could integrate the
comments made by both the public and the commissioners; so we get a real sense
of what we are voting on. Gibbs said the zoning change makes sense in this
neighborhood with other affordable housing and multi - family and residences but to
support the size of this project with this use proposed.
Wampler reminded the board that Jennifer said that P &Z had 4 items: growth
management on rezoning; growth management review on change of use; special
review for off - street parking and the issue of certificate of affordable housing; we
need to get back on these 4 items. Gibbs responded that he heard what Mike was
saying but they still have to make recommendations of the others. Gibbs said they
could make recommendations that would reflect the consensus and send that off
but Stan said that he would feel better with a better sense of what they were really
recommending.
12
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010
Jasmine proposed a modified motion to start with the planning staff's
recommendation with seeing a little more detail but didn't want the applicant to
have to do a full detail of drawings but for the applicant to come back to P &Z with
the adjustment of the floor area to 1.5 to 1 with reduction of height to that
applicable in the RFM Zone without a full set of elevations but to reduce the
density by increasing the size of the units and giving some idea of how that would
look in rough sketches rather than full elevations. Tygre noted it was a big building
and would have a big impact on the neighborhood and anybody who walks by but
avoiding a full architectural rendering. Jennifer Phelan said there would be
reduction in the height and massing with some reduction of square footage. Tygre
said she didn't have to see the units on a floor plan but a chart would be a
reasonable way for the applicant to proceed; she couldn't pass this onto Council
and suggested this as a reasonable compromise.
MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to see a little more detail as stated above with
rough sketches and a chart and reducing the height, mass and scale with a 1.5 to 1
floor area; the number of units reduced and increasing the size of the units and
include the number of parking spaces and continue to December 14, 2010.
Seconded by Bert Myrin with 4 in favor; 1 opposed (Wampler). Approved 4 -1.
Discussion prior to the vote:
LJ Erspamer requested the number of units. Jasmine Tygre said the size.
Erspamer said also the parking spaces and height. Myrin said the Benedict
Commons property is less surface area than this, yet is has 58 spaces below grade.
Stunda replied that he couldn't do it because of the existing historic part dedicated
to the historic preservation. Myrin was concerned with taking away public parking
on street along West Hopkins. Stunda said he thought that parking would be the
least of these issues.
MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes; Bert Myrin
seconded. Approved.
Continued discussion prior to the vote:
Myrin stated that P &Z was not binding them to. Tygre responded that was not
what the motion was what the motion said and she thought that there would be a
difference of opinion about what's acceptable and what's not among the different
members. Erspamer asked about the subsidy for the units in the building.
Worcester answered that Mr. Stunda and the City have been discussing this for
some time. Erspamer asked if he could go to the City Com Dev to ask what it
13
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010
would take. Worcester said that they have had discussions and he doesn't know
where they have gone.
Gibbs said that he agreed with Jasmine's motion; a little more information, a little
bit more refinement would be helpful to him. Gibbs said it would go a long way
toward getting support from the neighborhood. Gibbs said that for example just
show the historical designated parking that was associated with the Boomerang
Lodge and that's the extent of the on street parking he could get behind that but he
thought the most important thing was to feel that some of the impacts have been
addressed and some reductions have been made and at least give a sense of the
impact of the neighborhood. Stunda replied that he said that at the onset; he said
he wanted to be recognized that he spent a lot of money to develop an approved
building and it's just been dismissed on a hand. Gibbs said the point from P &Z's
respect is the change in use is not transparent and not just a simple "we will put
different things in it" and that is a big difference. Stunda said he heard that loud
and clear. Myrin asked the when it comes back that there was some support from
the neighborhood and it was not the largest most dense project.
Adjourned at 7:15 pm.
f,�y4�.i, ant,:
Oackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
14